The Front Porch: I found the perfect studio

[bmattock]

OK guys. I hope you don't mind me asking a question about my posted photos. I used a pre-war Elmar in the photos. Are the photos acceptably sharp or are they all lacking sharpness. dana moved around and my eyes may not be the sharpest anymore, but I get sharp results with a telephoto.

Sorry Raid. Yes I looked at your photos and I found the lack of sharpness quite acceptable on several shots - on a couple it appeared that the extremely shallow DOF worked against the photos instead of for them. But I considered they were experimental in nature, so did not comment negatively. The lens was fine, I thought - just the choice on shallow DOF might have not been perfect on a couple of them.

But then, I'm a fan of Gene Meatyard - if you're familiar with his work, he made it clear that sharpness is sometimes not the ne plus ultra of a photograph.

In any case, I'm on the lookout for a very cheap Summar for my Bessa R. I want to shoot it wide-open, so what does that tell you?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[SteveM(PA)]

OK guys. I hope you don't mind me asking a question about my posted photos. I used a pre-war Elmar in the photos. Are the photos acceptably sharp or are they all lacking sharpness. dana moved around and my eyes may not be the sharpest anymore, but I get sharp results with a telephoto.

Raid, I think there is acceptable sharpness and the photos reflect the beautiful portrait character of the lens. I have only a couple shots on my porch, but they are digicam shots. Here is one, as a contrast to the lovely glow in your shots. I used to like it, but I think it's too harsh and "Gap"-ish. It was a quick grab, though, in the midst of snow shovelling. Canon s230/macro mode:

 

[RicardoD]

First thought for me was they are lacking sharpness. But that is from a guy used to shooting a DSLR and prime Canon EOS lenses where my definition of sharp is perfect eye-lash and red-eye vein definition via pixel peeping. I also agree with Bill that it seems with such a shallow DOF on some of the shots you missed the focus by a hair.

However, I have always enjoyed the photos you have shared of your daughter, all I do is take snapshots of my kids, and it inspires me to take similar photos with my rangefinders. I also think one reason I getting into this rangefinder thing is to back off from the pixel peeping and try and work on my overall composition and sense of light which I feel I am terrible at currently.

 

[raid]

I had a rather small and dim viewfinder in my Canon IVsb. This is only the second roll of film taken with the Elmar 5cm lens by me. It seems as if sharpness is not as easy seens as in SLR photos or a rangefinder with a modern lens.

 

[raid]

Sorry Raid. Yes I looked at your photos and I found the lack of sharpness quite acceptable on several shots - on a couple it appeared that the extremely shallow DOF worked against the photos instead of for them. But I considered they were experimental in nature, so did not comment negatively. The lens was fine, I thought - just the choice on shallow DOF might have not been perfect on a couple of them.

But then, I'm a fan of Gene Meatyard - if you're familiar with his work, he made it clear that sharpness is sometimes not the ne plus ultra of a photograph.

In any case, I'm on the lookout for a very cheap Summar for my Bessa R. I want to shoot it wide-open, so what does that tell you?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Bill,
I am also falling into this category when using a Rangefinder camera. By the way, I am expecting a Summar in the mail with a Leica IIIc. Most likley, I will sell the camera but keep the lens for a while.

 

[John]

Raid,
Very nice shots from the porch. It looks a little bit like the plane of focus could have been slightly behind your daughter. It seems as though some of the bricks behind your daughter look sharper than she. Do you notice this at all? 🙂

 

[bmattock]

Bill,
I am also falling into this category when using a Rangefinder camera. By the way, I am expecting a Summar in the mail with a Leica IIIc. Most likley, I will sell the camera but keep the lens for a while.

That's the way to do it - I've often found that the lens/body combo goes for less on eBoy than a lens alone plus body alone. So you can buy both a recoup a bit on the body by selling it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[lmd91343]

Raid,

Your daughter is so cute!

I like the lighting of your porch. It is soft, natural, and low contrast. I don't detect too much blue from open shade. Using the porch is a great discovery

What I don't like is the complexity of the background. It is a bit distracting. I am sure you will work that out as you set up more formal poses. That is one of my problems. It is hard to tell a small child to sit for 10 minutes while you move the furniture!

 

[Chaser]

OK guys. I hope you don't mind me asking a question about my posted photos. I used a pre-war Elmar in the photos. Are the photos acceptably sharp or are they all lacking sharpness. dana moved around and my eyes may not be the sharpest anymore, but I get sharp results with a telephoto.

The second photo is about what i would consider perfect for a portrait. Looks like there was a little subject movement but not enough to make it unplesantly soft, but a little dreamy. If you wanted to make it biteingly sharp you could pop one of your fd lenses on with some 400 speed film and count hairs on her head....but a picuture like this is why people still lust after vintage optics...

or simply looks good to me...

 

[Dougg]

Raid, I too use the porch area for photos, as the indirect lighting is soft yet directional. Biggest problem is arranging a non-intrusive background.

Here's a kind of "portrait" on the porch woodpile...

 

[back alley]

great shot doug!

 

[raid]

Raid,
Very nice shots from the porch. It looks a little bit like the plane of focus could have been slightly behind your daughter. It seems as though some of the bricks behind your daughter look sharper than she. Do you notice this at all? 🙂

John: I have noticed what you have stated. Could it be that the Elmar's minimum focus did not allow close-up photos?

 

[raid]

Here is a link to see a series of photos out of which the first twelve photos were taken with a crappy looking cheap Steinheil Culminar 85mm/2.8. All photos were taken at 2.8 with Fujicolor 200.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=591010

 

[raid]

Raid, I think there is acceptable sharpness and the photos reflect the beautiful portrait character of the lens. I have only a couple shots on my porch, but they are digicam shots. Here is one, as a contrast to the lovely glow in your shots. I used to like it, but I think it's too harsh and "Gap"-ish. It was a quick grab, though, in the midst of snow shovelling. Canon s230/macro mode:

Steve: The photo certainly is sharp. I am ages behind with photography technology and I still don't own a digital SLR camera.

 

[bmattock]

Raid, you inspired me! We're having thunderstorms down here today, with alternating periods of bright light and then overcast skies. I caught my neighbors as they came home from church and made them come over and sit for me for just a moment.

I do like my porch, the light is good. Thanks for motivating me!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[aad]

Raid, I love the pictures. The old Elmar likes a pretty small aperture if you want sharp. That and the minimum focus distance makes it difficult to use for close portraits with narrow depth of field. In any case, I think your daughter is a wonderful model.

 

[raid]

Raid, you inspired me! We're having thunderstorms down here today, with alternating periods of bright light and then overcast skies. I caught my neighbors as they came home from church and made them come over and sit for me for just a moment.

I do like my porch, the light is good. Thanks for motivating me!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Bill: I like both shots, but the second one has the man look to the side. Which film and lens did you use?

Regards,
Raid

P.S. As for your lawn, put some Scott Weed and Feed now. It may help prevent new weed coming out.

 

[raid]

Raid, I love the pictures. The old Elmar likes a pretty small aperture if you want sharp. That and the minimum focus distance makes it difficult to use for close portraits with narrow depth of field. In any case, I think your daughter is a wonderful model.

Thanks aad. Now if I knew your name, I would use it here 🙂
I am trying out lenses at their max apertures for more interesting looking results.
I also think that the Elmar will be sharp at small apertures.

Greetings,
Raid

 

[bmattock]

Bill: I like both shots, but the second one has the man look to the side. Which film and lens did you use?

Regards,
Raid

P.S. As for your lawn, put some Scott Weed and Feed now. It may help prevent new weed coming out.

As to the lawn - we are under tornado watch here - all my grass seed has been washed away now. We may have to evacuate.

Anyway, about the lens, etc...

Both photos taken today with Era 100 film, processed in Rodinal 1+50 13 minutes 70 degrees, scanned with KM SD IV / Vuescan / The Gimp, using Bessaflex TM M42 SLR camera.

Shot one (lady) was taken with a post-WWII Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f2.8 Tessar. Shot wide-open, minimal crop.

Shot two (male) was taken with a converted cine lens - Bausch & Lomb Baltar 150mm f2.7. Shot wide-open in landscape, cropped to portrait (severe crop).

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[raid]

Good luck with the tornado watch. Forget about the lawn.
We are trying not to think of the upcoming hurricane season for Florida. It is expected to be worse than last year [which was aweful].